The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately address conflicting expert evidence on the effects of crack cocaine and the complainant's capacity to consent.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was alive to the dispute between the experts and that it was open to him to accept the complainant's evidence and reject the appellant's account.
The court further held that, even if the treatment of the expert evidence was inadequate, the conviction remained supported by the accepted evidence that the complainant was unable to move, speak, or think clearly and did not consent.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.
